Principles of Information Security 5th Edition Whitman Solutions Manual

Principles of Information Security 5th Edition
Whitman Solutions Manual download pdf
https://testbankdeal.com/product/principles-of-information-security-5th-
edition-whitman-solutions-manual/
Visit testbankdeal.com to explore and download the complete
collection of test banks or solution manuals!

We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit testbankdeal.com
for more options!.
Principles of Information Security 5th Edition Whitman
Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/principles-of-information-
security-5th-edition-whitman-test-bank/
Principles of Information Security 6th Edition Whitman
Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/principles-of-information-
security-6th-edition-whitman-solutions-manual/
Management of Information Security 5th Edition Whitman
Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/management-of-information-
security-5th-edition-whitman-solutions-manual/
Choices In Relationships An Introduction To Marriage And
The Family 11th Edition Knox Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/choices-in-relationships-an-
introduction-to-marriage-and-the-family-11th-edition-knox-test-bank/

GLOBAL Business 4th Edition peng Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/global-business-4th-edition-peng-
solutions-manual/
Environmental Science 14th Edition Enger Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/environmental-science-14th-edition-
enger-test-bank/
Canadian Tax Principles 2015 2016 Edition Volume I and
Volume II 1st Edition Byrd Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/canadian-tax-
principles-2015-2016-edition-volume-i-and-volume-ii-1st-edition-byrd-
test-bank/
Deviant Behavior 12th Edition Thio Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/deviant-behavior-12th-edition-thio-
test-bank/
Legal Environment Today Business In Its Ethical Regulatory
E-Commerce and Global Setting 7th Edition Miller Solutions
Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/legal-environment-today-business-in-
its-ethical-regulatory-e-commerce-and-global-setting-7th-edition-
miller-solutions-manual/

Engineering Fundamentals An Introduction to Engineering
5th Edition Saeed Moaveni Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/engineering-fundamentals-an-
introduction-to-engineering-5th-edition-saeed-moaveni-test-bank/

Principles of Information Security, 5th
Edition 6-1
Chapter 6
Security Technology: Firewalls and VPNs
At a Glance
Instructor’s Manual Table of Contents
• Overview
• Objectives
• Teaching Tips
• Quick Quizzes
• Class Discussion Topics
• Additional Projects
• Additional Resources
• Key Terms

Edition 6-2
Lecture Notes
Overview
This chapter discusses various authentication and access control methods. The chapter also
discusses the various approaches to firewall technologies and content filtering. The
emphasis of this chapter is on technical controls for both network and system access
control.
Chapter Objectives
In this chapter, your students will learn to:
• Discuss the important role of access control in computer-based information systems,
and identify and discuss widely used authentication factors
• Describe firewall technology and the various approaches to firewall implementation
• Identify the various approaches to control remote and dial-up access by authenticating
and authorizing users
• Discuss content filtering technology
• Describe virtual private networks and discuss the technology that enables them
Teaching Tips
Introduction
1. Explain how technical controls are essential in enforcing policy for many IT functions
that do not involve direct human control.
2. Discuss technical control solutions, which when properly implemented, can improve an
organization’s ability to balance the often conflicting objectives of making information
more readily and widely available against increasing the information’s levels of
confidentiality and integrity.
Access Control
1. Explain that access control is the method by which systems determine whether and how
to admit a user into a trusted area of the organization.
2. Remind students that there are two general types of access control systems:
discretionary and nondiscretionary.
3. Remind students that discretionary access controls (DACs) implement access control at
the discretion of the data user, and the most common example is Microsoft Windows.

Edition 6-3
4. Explain that nondiscretionary access controls (NDACs) are managed by a central
authority and access is based on either the individual’s role (role-based controls) or a set
of tasks (task-based controls).
5. Discuss lattice-based access controls (LBACs). Explain that LBACs specify the level of
access each subject has to each object, as implemented in access control lists (ACLs)
and capability tables.
6. Describe the Mandatory Access Control scheme’s use of data classification schemes for
granting access to data. Also, mention that MACs are a form of lattice-based,
nondiscretionary access controls.
7. Introduce students to attribute-based access controls (ABACs), which is a newer
approach to lattice-based access controls promoted by NIST.
Access Control Mechanisms
1. Introduce students to the four fundamental functions of access control systems:
• Identification
• Authentication
• Authorization
• Accountability
2. Define identification as a mechanism whereby an unverified entities—called
supplicants—who seek access to a resource proposes a label by which they are known
to the system.
3. Ensure that students understand that the label applied to the supplicant must be mapped
to one and only one entity within the security domain.
4. Explain how authentication is the validation of a supplicant’s identity. There are four
general forms of authentication to consider:
• What a supplicant knows
• What a supplicant has
• What a supplicant is
5. Discuss the concept of what a supplicant knows.
• A password is a private word or combination of characters that only the user should
know.
• One of the biggest debates in the information security industry concerns the
complexity of passwords.
• A password should be difficult to guess but must be something the user can easily
remember.
• A passphrase is a series of characters, typically longer than a password, from which
a virtual password is derived.

Edition 6-4
6. Discuss the concept of what a supplicant has.
• Addresses something the supplicant carries in his or her possession—that is,
something they have.
• These include dumb cards, such as ID cards or ATM cards with magnetic stripes
that contain the digital (and often encrypted) user personal identification number
(PIN), against which the number a user inputs is compared.
• An improved version of the dumb card is the smart card, which contains a computer
chip that can verify and validate a number of pieces of information instead of just a
PIN.
• Another device often used is the token, a card or key fob with a computer chip and a
liquid crystal display that shows a computer-generated number used to support
remote login authentication.
• Tokens are synchronous or asynchronous.
• Once synchronous tokens are synchronized with a server, both devices (server and
token) use the same time or a time-based database to generate a number that is
displayed and entered during the user login phase.
• Asynchronous tokens use a challenge-response system, in which the server
challenges the supplicant during login with a numerical sequence.
7. Describe the concept of who a supplicant is or something they can produce.
• The process of using body measurements is known as biometrics and includes:
• Relies on individual characteristics, such as: fingerprints, palm prints, hand
topography, hand geometry, or retina/iris scans
• Also may rely on something a supplicant can produce on demand, such as: voice
patterns, signatures, or keyboard kinetic measurements.
• Strong authentication requires at least two authentication mechanisms drawn from
two different factors of authentication.
8. Define authorization as the matching of an authenticated entity to a list of information
assets and corresponding access levels, which can happen in one of three ways.
• Authorization for each authenticated user, in which the system performs an
authentication process to verify each entity and then grants access to resources for
only that entity. This quickly becomes a complex and resource-intensive process in
a computer system.
• Authorization for members of a group, in which the system matches authenticated
entities to a list of group memberships, and then grants access to resources based on
the group’s access rights. This is the most common authorization method.
• Authorization across multiple systems, in which a central authentication and
authorization system verifies entity identity and grants it a set of credentials.
9. Explain that accountability or auditability is a system that directly attributes the actions
on a system with an authenticated entity.
Teaching
Tip
It may be helpful to have students read an explanation of MAC, such as the one
provided by FreeBSD, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/mac.html.

Edition 6-5
Biometrics
1. Explain that biometric access control relies on recognition. This type of authentication
is expected to have a significant impact in the future.
2. Discuss the types of biometric authentication technologies:
• Fingerprint comparison of the supplicant’s actual fingerprint to a stored fingerprint
• Palm print comparison of the supplicant’s actual palm print to a stored palm print
• Hand geometry comparison of the supplicant’s actual hand to a stored measurement
• Facial recognition using a photographic ID card, in which a human security guard
compares the supplicant’s face to a photo
• Facial recognition using a digital camera, in which a supplicant’s face is compared
to a stored image
• Retinal print comparison of the supplicant’s actual retina to a stored image
• Iris pattern comparison of the supplicant’s actual iris to a stored image
3. Point out that among all possible biometrics, only three human characteristics are
usually considered truly unique:
▪ Fingerprints
▪ Retina of the eye (blood vessel pattern)
▪ Iris of the eye (random pattern of features in the iris: freckles, pits, striations,
vasculature, coronas, and crypts)
• Most of the technologies that scan human characteristics convert these images to
some form of minutiae, which are unique points of reference that are digitized and
stored in an encrypted format when the user’s system access credentials are created.
4. Discuss the fact that signature and voice recognition technologies are also considered to
be biometric access control measures.
• Retail stores use signature recognition, or at least signature capture, for
authentication during a purchase. Currently, the technology for signature capturing
is much more widely accepted than that for signature comparison, because
signatures change due to a number of factors, including age, fatigue, and the speed
with which the signature is written.
• In voice recognition, an initial voiceprint of the user reciting a phrase is captured
and stored. Later, when the user attempts to access the system, the authentication
process will require the user to speak this same phrase so that the technology can
compare the current voiceprint against the stored value.
5. Explain the three basic criteria that biometric technologies are evaluated on:
• False reject rate
• False accept rate
• Crossover error rate (CER)
6. Use Table 6-1 to discuss the acceptability of biometrics.

Edition 6-6
Access Control Architecture Models
1. Explain that security access control architecture models illustrate access control
implementations and can help organizations quickly make improvements through
adaptation.
2. Introduce students to the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC). Point
out that it is an older DoD standard that defines the criteria for assessing the access
controls in a computer system.
3. Explain that TCSEC uses the concept of the trusted computing base (TCB) to enforce
security policy.
• TCB is made up of the hardware and software that has been implemented to
provide security for a particular information system (usually includes the
operating system kernel and a specified set of security utilities).
4. Point out that one of the biggest challenges in TCB is the existence of covert channels.
Mention that TCSEC defines two kinds of covert channels: storage channels and timing
channels.
5. Discuss the levels of protection assigned to products evaluated under TCSEC:
• D: Minimal protection
• C: Discretionary protection
• B: Mandatory protection
• A: Verified protection
6. Discuss the Information Technology System Evaluation Criteria (ITSEC), which is an
international set of criteria for evaluating computer systems.
7. Introduce students to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, often called the Common Criteria or just CC. Mention that it is an
international standard for computer security certification.
8. Discuss the following CC terminology:
• Target of Evaluation (ToE)
• Protection Profile (PP)
• Security Target (ST)
• Security Functional Requirements (SFRs)
• Evaluation Assurance Levels (EALs)
9. Explain that the Bell-LaPadula (BLP) model ensures the confidentiality of the modeled
system by using MACs, data classification, and security clearances.
10. Discuss with students how the Biba integrity model is similar to BLP. Point out that it is
based on the premise that higher levels of integrity are more worthy of trust than lower
ones.

Edition 6-7
11. Introduce students to the Clark-Wilson integrity model, which is built upon principles
of change control rather than integrity levels. The model’s change control principles
are:
• No changes by unauthorized subjects
• No unauthorized changes by authorized subjects
• The maintenance of internal and external consistency
12. Discuss the elements of the Clark-Wilson model:
• Constrained data item (CDI)
• Unconstrained data item
• Integrity verification procedure (IVP)
• Transformation procedure (TP)
13. Explain that the Graham-Denning access control model has three parts: a set of objects,
a set of subjects, and a set of rights. Further explain the model describes eight primitive
protection rights, called commands:
• Create object
• Create subject
• Delete object
• Delete subject
• Read access right
• Grant access right
• Delete access right
• Transfer access right
14. Introduce students to the Harrison-Ruzzo-Ullman (HRU) model that defines a method
to allow changes to access rights and the addition and removal of subjects and objects.
Mention that the Bell-LaPadula model does not allow changes.
15. Discuss the Brewer-Nash Model which is designed to prevent a conflict of interest
between two parties. Point out that this model is sometimes known as a Chinese Wall.
Quick Quiz 1
1. The method by which systems determine whether and how to admit a user into a trusted
area of the organization is known as _____.
Answer: access control
2. ____ is the process of validating a supplicant’s purported identity.
Answer: Authentication
3. True or False: The authentication factor “something a supplicant has” relies upon
individual characteristics, such as fingerprints, palm prints, hand topography, hand
geometry, or retina and iris scans.
Answer: False

Edition 6-8
4. The biometric technology criteria that describes the number of legitimate users who are
denied access because of a failure in the biometric device in known as _____.
Answer: false reject rate
5. Within TCB is an object known as the _____, which is the piece of the system that
manages access controls.
Answer: reference monitor
Firewalls
1. Explain how a firewall prevents specific types of information from moving between an
external network, known as the untrusted network, and an internal network, known as
the trusted network.
2. Discuss how the firewall may be a separate computer system, a software service
running on an existing router or server, or a separate network containing a number of
supporting devices.
Firewall Processing Modes
1. Point out to students that firewalls fall into four major categories of processing modes:
packet filtering, application gateways, MAC layer firewalls, and hybrids.
2. Explain that packet filtering firewalls examine the header information of data packets
that come into a network. The restrictions most commonly implemented are based on a
combination of:
• IP source and destination address
• Direction (inbound or outbound)
• Protocol, for firewalls capable of examining the IP protocol layer
• Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or User Datagram Protocol (UDP) source and
destination port requests
3. Describe simple firewall models, which examine one aspect of the packet header: the
destination and source address. Emphasize that they enforce address restrictions, rules
designed to prohibit packets with certain addresses or partial addresses from passing
through the device.
4. Explain that they accomplish this through access control lists (ACLs), which are created
and modified by the firewall administrators.
5. Identify the three subsets of packet filtering firewalls:
• Static filtering
• Dynamic filtering
• Stateful packet inspection (SPI)
6. Explain how static filtering requires that the filtering rules be developed and installed
with the firewall.

Edition 6-9
7. Describe dynamic filtering, which allows the firewall to react to an emergent event and
update or create rules to deal with the event. Note that while static filtering firewalls
allow entire sets of one type of packet to enter in response to authorized requests, the
dynamic packet filtering firewall allows only a particular packet with a particular
source, destination, and port address to enter through the firewall.
8. Explain how stateful inspection firewalls, or stateful firewalls, keep track of each
network connection between internal and external systems using a state table, which
tracks the state and context of each packet in the conversation by recording which
station sent which packet and when.
9. Discuss the difference between simple packet filtering firewalls and stateful firewalls.
Whereas simple packet filtering firewalls only allow or deny certain packets based on
their address, a stateful firewall can block incoming packets that are not responses to
internal requests.
10. Explain how the primary disadvantage of a stateful firewall is the additional processing
required to manage and verify packets against the state table, which can leave the
system vulnerable to a DoS or DDoS attack.
11. Emphasize that the application layer firewall or application firewall, is frequently
installed on a dedicated computer, separate from the filtering router, but is commonly
used in conjunction with a filtering router.
12. Explain how the application firewall is also known as a proxy server, since it runs
special software that acts as a proxy for a service request.
13. Emphasize that since the proxy server is often placed in an unsecured area of the
network or in the DMZ, it—rather than the Web server—is exposed to the higher levels
of risk from the less trusted networks.
14. Discuss how MAC layer firewalls are designed to operate at the media access control
layer of the OSI network model. Point out that this type of firewall is not as well known
or widely referenced.
15. Explain how using this approach, the MAC addresses of specific host computers are
linked to ACL entries that identify the specific types of packets that can be sent to each
host, and all other traffic is blocked.
16. Note that hybrid firewalls combine the elements of other types of firewalls—that is, the
elements of packet filtering and proxy services, or of packet filtering and circuit
gateways.
17. Explain how alternately, a hybrid firewall system can consist of two separate firewall
devices; each is a separate firewall system, but they are connected so that they work in
tandem.

Edition 6-10
18. Introduce students to the most recent generation of firewall, known as Unified Threat
Management (UTM). Point out that these devices are categorized by their ability to
perform the work of an SPI firewall, network intrusion detection and prevention system,
content filter, spam filter, and malware scanner and filter.
Firewall Architectures
1. Emphasize that each of the firewall devices noted earlier can be configured in a number
of network connection architectures.
2. Emphasize that the firewall configuration that works best for a particular organization
depends on three factors: the objectives of the network, the organization’s ability to
develop and implement the architectures, and the budget available for the function.
3. Describe the four common architectural implementations of firewalls:
• Packet filtering routers
• Dual-homed host firewalls (also known as bastion hosts)
• Screened host firewalls
• Screened subnet firewalls
4. Emphasize that most organizations with an Internet connection have a router as the
interface to the Internet at the perimeter between the organization’s internal networks
and the external service provider. Mention that many of these routers can be configured
to reject packets that the organization does not allow into the network.
5. Discuss the drawbacks to this type of system including a lack of auditing and strong
authentication, and the complexity of the access control lists used to filter the packets
can grow and degrade network performance.
6. Explain that with dual-homed firewalls, the bastion host contains two NICs. One NIC is
connected to the external network, and one is connected to the internal network,
providing an additional layer of protection.
7. Explain how with two NICs, all traffic must go through the firewall in order to move
between the internal and external networks.
8. Discuss the implementation of this architecture, which often makes use of Network
Address Translation (NAT). NAT is a method of mapping assigned IP addresses to
special ranges of nonroutable internal IP addresses, thereby creating yet another barrier
to intrusion from external attackers.
9. Introduce students to Port Address Translation (PAT), which is a variation of NAT.
10. Explain how this architecture combines the packet filtering router with a separate,
dedicated firewall, such as an application proxy server, allowing the router to prescreen
packets to minimize the network traffic and load on the internal proxy.

Edition 6-11
11. Describe how the application proxy examines an application layer protocol and
performs the proxy services. Use Figure 6-17 in your discussion.
12. Emphasize that the dominant architecture used today, the screened subnet firewall
provides a DMZ.
13. Explain how the DMZ can be a dedicated port on the firewall device linking a single
bastion host, or it can be connected to a screened subnet.
14. Note that a common arrangement finds the subnet firewall consisting of two or more
internal bastion hosts behind a packet filtering router, with each host protecting the
trusted network:
• Connections from the outside or untrusted network are routed through an external
filtering router.
• Connections from the outside or untrusted network are routed into—and then out
of—a routing firewall to the separate network segment known as the DMZ.
• Connections into the trusted internal network are allowed only from the DMZ
bastion host servers.
15. Explain how the screened subnet is an entire network segment that performs two
functions:
• It protects the DMZ systems and information from outside threats by providing a
network of intermediate security.
• It protects the internal networks by limiting how external connections can gain
access to internal systems.
16. Emphasize that DMZs can also create extranets, segments of the DMZ where additional
authentication and authorization controls are put into place to provide services that are
not available to the general public.
17. Note that SOCKS is the protocol for handling TCP traffic via a proxy server.
18. Explain how the general approach is to place the filtering requirements on the
individual workstation rather than on a single point of defense (and thus point of
failure).
19. Discuss how this frees the entry router from filtering responsibilities, but it requires that
each workstation be managed as a firewall detection and protection device.

Edition 6-12
Selecting the Right Firewall
1. Explain how when selecting the best firewall for an organization, you should consider a
number of factors. The most important of these is the extent to which the firewall design
provides the desired protection.
• Which type of firewall technology offers the right balance between protection and
cost for the needs of the organization?
• What features are included in the base price? What features are available at extra
cost? Are all cost factors known?
• How easy is it to set up and configure the firewall? How accessible are the staff
technicians who can competently configure the firewall?
• Can the candidate firewall adapt to the growing network in the target organization?
2. Emphasize that the second most important issue is cost.
Configuring and Managing Firewalls
1. Discuss good policy and practice, which dictate that each firewall device, whether a
filtering router, bastion host, or other firewall implementation, must have its own set of
configuration rules that regulate its actions.
2. Emphasize that the configuration of firewall policies can be complex and difficult.
Explain how each configuration rule must be carefully crafted, debugged, tested, and
sorted.
3. Emphasize that when configuring firewalls, keep one thing in mind: when security rules
conflict with the performance of business, security often loses.
4. Discuss best practices for firewalls. The following are some of the best practices for
firewall use:
• All traffic from the trusted network is allowed out
• The firewall device is never directly accessible from the public network.
• SMTP data is allowed to pass through the firewall, but it should be routed to a well-
configured SMTP gateway to filter and route messaging traffic securely.
• All ICMP data should be denied.
• Telnet access to all internal servers from the public networks should be blocked.
• When Web services are offered outside the firewall, HTTP traffic should be denied
from reaching your internal networks through the use of some form of proxy access
or DMZ architecture.
• All data that is not verifiably authentic should be denied.
5. Explain how firewalls operate by examining a data packet and performing a comparison
with some predetermined logical rules.
6. Discuss the logic, which is based on a set of guidelines programmed in by a firewall
administrator, or created dynamically and based on outgoing requests for information.
7. Note that this logical set is most commonly referred to as firewall rules, rule base, or
firewall logic.

Edition 6-13
8. Explain how most firewalls use packet header information to determine whether a
specific packet should be allowed to pass through or should be dropped.
9. Discuss the rule sets given in the textbook, starting on page 334. Be sure to use Tables
6-5 through 6-19 in your discussion.
Content Filters
1. Describe a content filter, which is a software filter—technically not a firewall—that
allows administrators to restrict access to content from within a network. It is a set of
scripts or programs that restricts user access to certain networking protocols and
Internet locations, or restricts users from receiving general types or specific examples of
Internet content.
2. Note that some refer to content filters as reverse firewalls, as their primary focus is to
restrict internal access to external material.
3. Explain to students that in most common implementation models, the content filter has
two components: rating and filtering.
4. Emphasize that the rating is like a set of firewall rules for Web sites, and it is common
in residential content filters.
5. Explain how the filtering is a method used to restrict specific access requests to the
identified resources, which may be Web sites, servers, or whatever resources the
content filter administrator configures.
6. Discuss the most common content filters, which restrict users from accessing Web sites
with obvious non-business related material, such as pornography, or deny incoming
spam e-mail.
Teaching
Tip
Explain to students that the line between these various devices blurs with each
new product introduction as more and more vendors are attempting to broaden
their coverage with a single device rather than a suite of devices.
Quick Quiz 2
1. What type of firewall examines every incoming packet header and can selectively filter
packets based on header information, such as destination address, source address,
packet type, and other key information?
Answer: Packet filtering
2. Which type of firewall filtering allows the firewall to react to an emergent event and
update or create rules to deal with the event?
Answer: Dynamic

Edition 6-14
3. True or False: The commonly used name for an intermediate area between a trusted
network and an untrusted network is the DMZ.
Answer: True
4. True or False: All traffic exiting from the trusted network should be filtered.
Answer: False
5. A network filter that allows administrators to restrict access to external content from
within a network is known as a _____.
Answer: content filter or reverse firewall
Protecting Remote Connections
1. Discuss installing Internetwork connections, which requires using leased lines or other
data channels provided by common carriers, and therefore these connections are usually
permanent and secured under the requirements of a formal service agreement.
2. Explain how in the past, organizations provided remote connections exclusively through
dial-up services like Remote Authentication Service (RAS). Since the Internet has
become more widespread in recent years, other options, such as Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs), have become more popular.
Remote Access
1. Explain how it is a widely held view that these unsecured, dial-up connection points
represent a substantial exposure to attack.
2. Note that an attacker who suspects that an organization has dial-up lines can use a
device called a war dialer to locate the connection points.
3. Explain how a war dialer is an automatic phone-dialing program that dials every
number in a configured range and checks to see if a person, answering machine, or
modem picks up.
4. Discuss how some technologies, such as RADIUS systems, TACACS, and CHAP
password systems, have improved the authentication process.
RADIUS, Diameter, and TACACS
1. Explain how RADIUS and TACACS are systems that authenticate the credentials of
users who are trying to access an organization’s network via a dial-up connection.
2. Explain how Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service systems place the
responsibility for authenticating each user in the central RADIUS server.

Edition 6-15
3. Note that when a remote access server (NAS) receives a request for a network
connection from a dial-up client, it passes the request along with the user’s credentials
to the RADIUS server, which then validates the credentials and passes the resulting
decision (accept or deny) back to the accepting RAS.
4. Explain how the Diameter protocol defines the minimum requirements for a system that
provides Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) services and can go
beyond these basics and add commands and/or object attributes.
5. Discuss diameter security, which uses respected encryption standards including IPSEC
or TLS, and its cryptographic capabilities are extensible and will be able to use future
encryption protocols as they are implemented.
6. Describe how the RADIUS system is similar in function to the Terminal Access
Controller Access Control System (TACACS).
7. Note that like RADIUS, it is a centralized database, and it validates the user’s
credentials at the TACACS server.
Securing Authentication with Kerberos
1. Emphasize that Kerberos uses symmetric key encryption to validate an individual user
to various network resources.
2. Explain that Kerberos keeps a database containing the private keys of clients and
servers. Note that in the case of a client, this key is simply the client’s encrypted
password.
3. Explain how the Kerberos system knows these private keys and how it can authenticate
one network node (client or server) to another. Kerberos consists of the following
interacting services, all of which use a database library:
• Authentication server (AS), which is a Kerberos server that authenticates clients
and servers
• Key Distribution Center (KDC), which generates and issues session keys
• Kerberos ticket granting service (TGS), which provides tickets to clients who
request services
4. Point out that Kerberos is based on the following principles:
• The KDC knows the secret keys of all clients and servers on the network
• The KDC initially exchanges information with the client and server by using
these secret keys
• Kerberos authenticates a client to a requested service on a server through TGS
and by issuing temporary session keys for communications between the client
and KDC, the server and KDC, and the client and server
• Communications then take place between the client and server using these
temporary session keys

Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents

Mr. Gard: The States can only ratify it. You would prefer that course to
having it taken directly to the people?
Miss Paul: Simply because we have the power of women’s votes to back up
this method.
Mr. Gard: You are using this method because you think you have power to
enforce it?
Miss Paul: Because we know we have power.
Mr. Taggart: The women who have the vote in the West are not worrying
about what women are doing in the East. You will have to get more States
before you try this nationally.
Miss Paul: We think that this repeated advice to go back to the States
proves beyond all cavil that we are on the right track.
Mr. Taggart: Suppose you get fewer votes this time? Do you think it is fair
to those members of Congress who voted for Woman Suffrage and have
stood for Woman Suffrage, to oppose them merely because a majority of their
Party were not in favor of Woman Suffrage?
Miss Paul: Every man that we opposed stood by his Party caucus in its
opposition to Suffrage.
Mr. Volstead: This inquiry is absolutely unfair and improper. It is cheap
politics, and I have gotten awfully tired listening to it.
Mr. Taggart: Have your services been bespoken by the Republican
committee of Kansas for the next campaign?
Miss Paul: We are greatly gratified by this tribute to our value.
Mr. Moss: State just whether or not it is a fact that the question is, What is
right? and not, What will be the reward or punishment of the members of this
committee? Is not that the only question that is pending before this
committee?
Miss Paul: Yes, as we have said over and over today. We have come simply
to ask that this committee report this measure to the House, that the House
may consider the question.
Mr. Moss: Can you explain to the committee what the question of what you
are going to do to a member of this committee or a Congressman in regard to
his vote has to do with the question of what we should do as our duty?
Miss Paul: As I have said, we don’t see any reason for discussing that.
Mr. Webb: You have no blacklist, have you, Miss Paul?
Miss Paul: No.

Mr. Taggart: You are organized, are you not, for the chastisement of
political Parties that do not do your bidding at once?
Miss Paul: We are organized to win votes for women and our method of
doing this is to organize the women who have the vote to help other women
to get it.
The meeting then adjourned.
Before going on with the work for 1916, it is perhaps expedient to
mention here one of two interesting events. The New York Tribune
announced on November 5 that, “accepting the advice of Mrs. Medill
McCormick of Chicago, the National American Woman Suffrage
Association announced yesterday that it had instructed the
Congressional Committee not to introduce the Shafroth-Palmer
Resolution in the Sixty-fourth Congress.” This meant, of course, that
there would in the future be no division of the energies of the
Suffrage forces of the country; that all would work for the Susan B.
Anthony Amendment.

Principles of Information Security 5th Edition Whitman Solutions Manual

II
THE NEW HEADQUARTERS AND THE MIDDLE YEARS
The second event of 1915 of less importance nationally, but of great
practical importance to the Congressional Union, was the removal of
Headquarters from the dark, congested rooms in F Street to
Cameron House, sometimes known as the Little White House.
Cameron House has held, ever since its construction, a vivid place in
Washington history. It has been occupied by Senator Donald
Cameron; Vice-President Garret A. Hobart; Senator Mark Hanna. The
famous breakfasts given by Senator Hanna, to which President
McKinley often came, occurred here. Presidents, such as John
Quincy Adams, Harrison, Taylor, and Fillmore; statesmen, such as
Webster, Clay, Cass, and Calhoun; historians, such as Prescott,
Bancroft, and Washington Irving, have frequented it. The Little
White House is situated at 21 Madison Place, just across Lafayette
Square from the big White House. From the windows of the big
White House could be seen great banners of purple, white, and gold,
waving at the windows of the Little White House.
Cameron House was charming inside and out. Outside, a great
wistaria vine made in the spring a marvel of its façade, and inside a
combination of fine proportions and a charming architectural
arrangement of the rooms gave it that gemütlich atmosphere
necessary to a rallying spot. When you entered, you came into a
great hall, from which a noble staircase made an effective exit, and
in which a huge fireplace formed a focussing center. All winter long,
a fire was going in that fireplace; there were easy chairs in front of

it, and straying off from it. The Little White House became a place
where people dropped in easily. This big reception hall always held a
gay, interesting, and interested group, composed of Party members
resident there; sympathizers and workers who lived in Washington;
people from all over the United States who had come to Washington
on a holiday. The organizers were always returning from the four
corners of the country with a harvest of news and ideas and plans
before starting off for new fields.
Perhaps there is no better place than here to speak of the work of
those remarkable young women—the organizers. It will be
remembered that from the time of the formation of the
Congressional Committee to the time when the Senate passed the
Anthony Amendment was about six years and a half. Yet in 1919,
Maud Younger said to me, “There have been three generations of
organizers in this movement.” That was true. Not that they served
their average of two years and left. Most of them who came to work
for the Party stayed with it. It was only that, as the work grew,
developed, expanded, more organizers and even more became
necessary. And perhaps it is one of the chief glories of the Woman’s
Party that these organizers came to them younger and younger, until
at the end they were fresh, beautiful girls in their teens and early
twenties.
The first group consisted of:
Mabel Vernon; Elsie Hill; Margaret Whittemore; Doris Stevens;
Mrs. Sinclair Thompson; Virginia Arnold.
The second group consisted of:
Iris Calderhead; Vivian Pierce; Beulah Amidon; Lucy Branham;
Hazel Hunkins; Clara Louise Rowe; Joy Young; Margery Ross; Mary
Gertrude Fendall; Pauline Clarke; Alice Henkel; Rebecca Hourwich.
The third group consisted of:
Julia Emory; Betty Gram; Anita Pollitzer; Mary Dubrow; Catherine
Flanagan.

The difficulties which lay in the path of the organizers cannot
possibly be exaggerated: the work they accomplished cannot
possibly be estimated. Their story is one of those sealed chapters in
the history of feminism, the whole of which will never be known.
With her usual astuteness Alice Paul always chose young, fresh,
convinced, inspiring, and inspired spirits. Always she preferred
enthusiasm to experience. Before an organizer left Headquarters for
parts unknown, Alice Paul talked with her for several hours, going
over her route, indicating the problems which would arise and—in
her characteristic and indescribable Alice Paul way—suggesting how
they were to be met; holding always above these details the shining
object of the journey; managing somehow to fill her with the feeling
that in spite of many obstacles, she would conquer all these new
worlds. “No matter,” she always concluded, “what other Suffragists
may say about us, pay no attention to it; go on with your work. Our
fight is not against women.”
Sometimes these girls would come into towns where there not
only existed no Suffrage organization but there had never been a
Suffrage meeting. Sometimes they would have a list of names of
people to whom to go for help; sometimes not that. At any rate they
went to the best hotel and established themselves there. Then they
found Headquarters, preferably in the hotel lobby; but if not there,
in a shop window. Next they saw the newspapers. Inevitably it
seemed—Alice Paul’s sure instinct never failed her here—they were
incipient newspaper women. From the moment they arrived, blazing
their purple, white, and gold, the papers rang with them, and that
ringing continued until they left. They called on the women whose
names had been given them, asked them to serve on a committee in
order to arrange a meeting. At that meeting, to which National
Headquarters would send a well-known speaker, the work would be
explained, the aims of the Woman’s Party set forth, its history
reviewed. When the organizer left that town, she left an organization
of some sort behind her. Alice Paul always preferred, rather than a
large, inactive membership, a few active women who, when needed,
could bring pressure to bear from their State on Washington.

In the course of its history, the Woman’s Party has organized at
some time in every State of the Union.
Whenever the organizers came back to Washington, Miss Paul
always sent them to the Capitol to lobby for a while. This put them
in touch with the Congressional situation. Moreover, Congressmen
were always glad to talk with women who brought them concrete
information in regard to the country at large, and particularly in
regard to the Suffrage sentiment and the political situation in their
own States, which they had often not seen for months. On the other
hand, when the organizers embarked on their next journey, editors
of small towns were always very grateful for the chance of talking
with these informed young persons, who could bring their news
straight from the national news-mint.
But one of the great secrets of Alice Paul’s success was that she
freshened her old forces all the time, by giving them new work,
brought new forces to bear all the time on the old work. If
organizers showed the first symptoms of growing stale on one beat,
she transferred them to another. Most of them performed at some
time during their connection with the Woman’s Party every phase of
its work. Perpetual change ... perpetual movement ... the onward
rush of an exhilarating flood ... that was the feeling the Woman’s
Party gave the onlooker.
I reiterate that it would be impossible to do justice, short of a
book devoted entirely to their efforts, to these organizers. They turn
up everywhere. They do everything! They know not fatigue! There is
no end to their ingenuity and enthusiasm.
In spite of all this intensive thinking, and its result in action, the
Congressional Union had its lighter moments, and many of them.
On Valentine’s Day, 1916, a thousand Suffrage valentines were
despatched to Senators and Representatives by members of the
Congressional Union living in their districts; the President and Vice-
President were not forgotten. They were of all kinds and
descriptions. Recalcitrant politicians were especially favored. The

Rules Committee, for instance, were showered. One of Mr. Henry’s
valentines took the form of an acrostic:
H is for Hurry—
Which Henry should do.
E is for Every—
Which includes women too.
N is for Now—
The moment to act.
R is for Rules—
Which must bend to the fact.
Y is for You—
With statesmanlike tact.
Mr. Pou’s valentine showed an exquisitely ruffled little maiden, with
heel-less, cross-gartered slippers and a flower-trimmed hat,
curtseying to a stocked and ruffled gentleman who is presenting her
with a bouquet. Underneath it says:
The rose is red,
The violet’s blue,
But VOTES are better
Mr. Pou.
One to Representative Williams of the Judiciary Committee ran:
Oh, will you will us well, Will,
As we will will by you,
If you’ll only will to help us
Put the Amendment through!
Representative Webb’s valentine bore the words, “From a fond
heart to a Democratic (?) Congressman,” with the following verse:
Federal aid he votes for rural highways,
And Federal aid for pork each to his need;
And Federal aid for rivers, trees, and harbors,
But Federal aid for women?—No, indeed!

Representative Fitzgerald received:
Your Party’s health is very shaky,
The Western women say,
They scorn a laggard lover
And will not tell him “Yea,”
But pass the Suffrage measure,
Then watch Election Day!
Congressman Mondell’s valentine was a red heart, on which was
written:
Oh, a young Lochinvar has come out of the West,
Of all the great measures his bill was the best!
So fearless in caucus, so brave on the floor
There ne’er was a leader like young Lochinvar!
On May Day, the Woman’s Party hung a May basket for the
President. It was over-brimming with purple, white, and gold
flowers, and, concealed in their midst, was a plea for the Susan B.
Anthony Amendment.
Later, in May, on Representative Williams’s birthday, he was invited
by Representative Kent to go with him into the visitors’ lobby. There
he met Gertrude and Ruth Crocker of the Congressional Union, who
were carrying on a tray, made of the Congressional Union banner
and the American flag, a huge birthday cake. It was frosted and set
with fifty-nine candles, each emerging from a small, yellow rose and
bore an inscription in purple letters:
May the coming year bring you joy and the Susan B. Anthony Amendment.
A few days later, when Representative Steele reached his office,
he found on his desk a purple basket filled with forget-me-nots. The
card bore this inscription:

“Forget me not” is the message
I bring in my gladsome blue;
Forget not the fifty-six years that have gone
And the work there is still to do;
Forget not the Suffrage Amendment
That waits in committee for you.
The first National Convention of the Congressional Union was held
at Cameron House from December 6 to December 13, 1915. The
following ten members were elected for the Executive Committee:
Alice Paul; Lucy Burns; Mrs. O. H. P. Belmont; Mrs. John Winters
Brannan; Mrs. Gilson Gardner; Mrs. William Kent; Mrs. Lawrence
Lewis; Elsie Hill; Anne Martin; Mrs. Donald R. Hooker.

III
THE CONFLICT WITH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
BOTHERATION
(“Why do you come here and bother us?”—Chairman Webb, at the Suffrage
hearing in Washington.)

Girls, girls, the worst has happened;
Our cause is at its ebb.
How could you go and do it!
You’ve bothered Mr. Webb!
You came and asked for freedom,
(As law does not forbid)
Not thinking it might bother him,
And yet, it seems, it did.
Oh, can it be, my sisters,
My sisters can it be,
You did not think of Mr. Webb
When asking to be free?
You did not put his comfort
Before your cause? How strange!
But now you know the way he feels
I hope we’ll have a change.
Send word to far Australia
And let New Zealand know,
And Oregon and Sweden,
Finland and Idaho;
Make all the nations grasp it,
From Sitka to El Teb,
We never mention Suffrage now;
It bothers Mr. Webb!
Alice Duer Miller.
OUR IDEA OF NOTHING AT ALL
(“I am opposed to Woman Suffrage, but I am not opposed to woman.”—Anti-
Suffrage speech of Mr. Webb of North Carolina.)

Oh, women, have you heard the news
Of charity and grace?
Look, look, how joy and gratitude
Are beaming in my face!
For Mr. Webb is not opposed
To woman in her place!
Oh, Mr. Webb, how kind you are
To let us live at all,
To let us light the kitchen range
And tidy up the hall;
To tolerate the female sex
In spite of Adam’s fall.
Oh, girls, suppose that Mr. Webb
Should alter his decree!
Suppose he were opposed to us—
Opposed to you and me.
What would be left for us to do—
Except to cease to be?
Alice Duer Miller.
During 1916, the central department of the Congressional Union—the
legislative—was in the hands of Anne Martin who after her notable
success in making Nevada a free State and with the added
advantage of being a voter herself, was particularly fitted for this
work. Anne Martin showed extraordinary ability in building back-fires
in Congressional Districts, in keeping State and district chairmen
informed of the actions of the representatives, in getting pressure
from home upon them and in organizing the lobbying. Maud
Younger, as chairman of the Lobby Committee, composed of women
voters, assisted her. Lucy Burns edited the Suffragist.
The friends of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment were surprised—
and of course delighted—when through the tireless efforts of Anne
Martin—the Suffrage Bill came out of committee and onto the
calendar of the Senate on January 8. In the House at first, the
situation seemed equally encouraging. But unexpected obstacles
manifested themselves; continued to multiply and grow. Presently

there developed between the Judiciary Committee and the
Suffragists a contest similar to that of 1914 between the Rules
Committee and the Suffragists, but more intense.
The Judiciary Committee as usual referred the Amendment to a
sub-committee. Anne Martin lobbied the members of the sub-
committee and in consequence of this pressure, the sub-committee
on February 9, voted the report out—although without
recommendation, to the full committee which would meet on
February 15.
At this meeting, by a vote of nine to seven, the Judiciary
Committee referred the Suffrage Resolution back to the sub-
committee with instructions to hold it until December 14—nearly a
year off. This was an unusual thing to do. After a sub-committee has
reported a measure to the committee, it is customary to allow at
least a week to elapse before it is acted upon, so that the members
who are absent may be present when the committee, as a whole,
votes upon it. There is a gentleman’s agreement to this effect.
In her Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist, in McCall’s Magazine,
Maud Younger thus describes the meeting of February 15:
The day ended as discouragingly as it had begun and I reported the
situation to Mr. John Nelson, of Wisconsin, the only man on the committee
who showed genuine enthusiasm.
“Your Amendment can’t come up tomorrow,” he assured me. “There’s a
gentleman’s agreement that no action shall be taken on a bill for a week after
the sub-committee reports it out. The matter lies over so that the members
may be notified to be present. Your Amendment will come up next week.”
Relying on this reprieve, I felt no apprehension when Anne and I went to
the Capitol next morning. Standing in the anteroom of the Judiciary
Committee’s chamber, we watched the members passing through. The
committee went into executive session and the door closed.
“There’s the gentleman’s agreement,” I said to Anne. “Nothing can happen.”
“No,” she answered meditatively.
We waited. An hour passed and Mr. Carlin came out. He walked close to
Anne and said with a laugh as he passed her, “Well, we’ve killed Cock Robin.”

“Cock Robin?” said Anne, puzzled, looking after him.
Mr. Nelson came out, much perturbed, and explained. Upon motion of Mr.
Carlin the Judiciary Committee had voted to send the Amendment back to the
sub-committee to remain until the following December.
This was in direct violation of the gentleman’s agreement but our
opponents had the votes, nine to seven, and they used them. Our
Amendment was killed. Every one on the committee said so. Every one in
Congress with whom we talked said so. The newspaper men said so. Soon
every one believed it but Alice Paul, and she never believed it at all.
“That’s absurd!” she said impatiently. “We have only to make them
reconsider.”
At once she went over the list of our opponents to decide who should make
the move. “Why, William Elza Williams, of Illinois, of course. He will do it.” She
sent me to see him.
Mr. Williams was necessary not only for purposes of reconsideration, but
because, when he had changed his vote, we would have a majority in
committee. But he did not see the matter at all in the same light in which Miss
Paul saw it. He had not the least intention of changing his vote. I pointed out
that the women of Illinois, being half voters, had some claims to
representation, but he remained obdurate.
When this was reported to Miss Paul she merely said, “Mr. Williams will
have to change his vote. Elsie Hill can attend to it.”
So Elsie, buoyant with good spirits, good health, and tireless enthusiasm,
pinned her smart hat on her reddish-brown hair and set out through Illinois
for Mr. Williams’s vote.
Presently the ripples of Elsie’s passing across the Illinois prairies began to
break upon the peaceful desk of Mr. Williams in Washington. I found him
running a worried hand through his hair, gazing at newspaper clippings about
Mr. Williams and his vote on the Judiciary Committee. Resolutions arrived
from Labor Unions asking him to reconsider; letters from constituents,
telegrams, reports of meetings, editorials.
On March 8, a deputation of twenty members of the Congressional
Union, led by Maud Younger, called on Representative Williams. I
quote the Suffragist:

Mr. Williams received the women with cordiality and Miss Younger at once
laid before him the object of the visit.
“On the fifteenth of February,” said Miss Younger, “the sub-committee
reported out the Suffrage Amendment. We are told that there is a
gentleman’s agreement to the effect that when a sub-committee reports, no
action shall be taken that day but the matter shall lie over for a week. Four of
our supporters were absent on the day of the report and the opposition sent
the Amendment back to sub-committee. There were nine votes cast in favor
of sending it back, and seven against. We feel that it was you who cast the
deciding vote, for if you had voted with supporters of Suffrage, the vote
would have been a tie, and the Amendment would not now be in sub-
committee.
“You told me that you were in favor of having this matter remain in
committee until December, because you felt it would be embarrassing to some
men who would run for office next fall. As a trades-unionist, as well as a
woman voter, I feel that the eight million working women of this country are
entitled to as much consideration as are a few politicians.”
Miss Younger then introduced Mrs. Lowell Mellett, of Seattle, Washington;
Mrs. William Kent, of California; Mrs. Gilson Gardner, Mrs. Charles Edward
Russell, of Illinois; Anne Martin, of Nevada; each of whom made an appeal to
Mr. Williams to give his support to a report from the Judiciary Committee
during the present session.
Miss Martin said:
You are in what seems to us a very undesirable position. You are a
Representative from a Suffrage State, from a State where women have the
right to vote for President. You are a professed Suffragist, yet you are the
only member of that committee who is a Suffragist and who is in the position
of having voted with the professed anti-Suffragists against a hearing.... We
urge you to do everything in your power to reconsider the smothering of this
resolution, and bring up the question in committee again as soon as possible,
to report it to the House and then to leave to the Rules Committee the
question of what time it shall have for discussion in this session. We urge this
most earnestly.
Mr. Williams replied:

I am pleased to hear from you ladies and to know fully your side of this
case.
If I remember correctly the conversation you refer to in which I spoke of
some embarrassment—not to myself, but to some of my colleagues—I think I
stated the condition of the calendar and the business of this session. I have
not double-crossed anybody. I have not taken any sudden change of front. I
have told every representative of the Suffrage organization who has visited
me that I do not favor a report at this first session of the Sixty-fourth
Congress. I gave, as my primary reason, the crowded condition of the
business of this Congress. I incidentally—sometimes in a good-natured way,
as I remember—stated that it did not embarrass me to vote on the question
because I was already on record, but it might embarrass some of my
colleagues. My real views have been that Congress has duties in this, a
campaign year, when all members hope to leave at a reasonable time within
which to make their campaign; that this session is not a good time to take
upon ourselves the consideration of any unimportant question that can be
disposed of just as well at the next session.
With a campaign approaching and two national conventions in June, I do
not believe it wise for your cause to crowd this matter on now. I do not
believe that it would get that consideration that you will get after the election
and after these necessary matters—matters of importance and urgent
necessity—are disposed of.
I am opposed to smothering anything in committee. I do not propose to
smother this in committee. I intend, when I think it is the proper time, to vote
the Susan B. Anthony Amendment out and vote for it in the House. Now that
is my intention. I have not said that I would not do so at this session. I think
the strongest that I have put it is that I would not do so unless the work of
the session is cleared away so that we can get to it.
Now I have said more than that. At any time that you get a full attendance
of the committee, or those absent represented by pairs so that both sides are
represented, and no advantage can be taken and no criticism made of what
takes place, whenever there is what is equivalent to a full committee present,
I am willing that the committee shall again vote on the question and
determine whether they want it out now.
Miss Younger: Before the conventions will meet in June, Congress will have
been in session six months, and we ask you for only one day out of the six
months. Some of those other questions, such as preparedness, are not ready
to come before Congress.
Mr. Williams: You would not be satisfied with one day.
Miss Martin: That is all we had last time and we were satisfied.

Mrs. Russell: Whatever action Congress takes or does not take on
preparedness, we women will have to stand for it. Any program that Congress
puts through we shall be involved in. Isn’t that just one more reason why we
ought to have a vote promptly?
Mr. Williams: Yes, but you cannot get it in time for the emergency that is
now before us. I believe this: If women had full political rights everywhere
there would not be any war. But that cannot be brought about in time for this
emergency.
“We cannot conceive,” said one member of the delegation at this juncture,
“of any situation which will not permit of three-quarters of an hour being
taken on the floor of the House for a vote.”
Mr. Williams: We have no right to refuse to submit it. I would not smother it
in committee at all, but I believe the committee has a right to exercise their
discretion as to when it shall be submitted.... How do you take my
suggestion? I am willing that a vote may be had at any time if there is the
equivalent of a full attendance of the committee. Can that be secured?
Miss Martin: I have been working with this committee for nearly three
months, and I do not know of any session at which they have all been
present. You impose upon us now a condition that you did not exact when
this Amendment was smothered.
I think that we must regard a motion to postpone until after election as an
action unfriendly to Suffrage.
Mr. Williams: It may be. I do not see how it can be.
“Last year,” a member of the delegation then reminded Mr. Williams, “the
Amendment was postponed and voted on immediately after the elections
were safely over. The plan now is to postpone it until after the elections to the
Sixty-fifth Congress are over and no one’s election will be jeopardized. We do
not like to have the vote taken in each Congress immediately after election.”
Miss Martin: We are not saying anything with reference to a vote on the
floor of the House at this time. We are simply asking that the Judiciary
Committee perform its function and judge the bill on its merits and make its
report to the House. Does not that appeal to you?
Mr. Williams: Yes, it does. I am told I am the only member of the
committee who voted to postpone the Amendment, who is a Representative
from a Suffrage State. Somehow or other you have put the burden on me.
Miss Martin: You are. The burden is on you.

Miss Younger: If we could prove to you that with your vote we would have
a majority of the committee, would you be willing to vote to report it out to
the House?
Mr. Williams: There would be ten besides myself favorable to reporting it
out? Yes, if you have the ten.
Miss Martin: I have them right here. You are the eleventh. We have those
ten votes.
Mr. Williams: Well, I hope you have. May I ask you just to read them?
Miss Martin: These are the ten who are for reporting the Amendment:
Representatives Thomas, of Kentucky; Taggart, of Kansas; Dale of New York;
Neely, of West Virginia; Volstead, of Minnesota; Nelson, of Wisconsin;
Morgan, of Oklahoma; Chandler, of New York; Dyer, of Missouri, and Moss, of
West Virginia. That makes ten.
Mr. Williams: And Mr. Williams will make eleven. When will it be possible to
get them all together?
Miss Martin: We were hoping to do that by tomorrow. Mr. Dale was here but
he has been called back to New York. Mr. Moss has been seriously ill but has
promised to attend the meeting tomorrow. I will read the names of the men
who are against a report. They are all anti-Suffragists and you are classified
with them: Representatives Webb, of North Carolina; Carlin, of Virginia;
Walker, of Georgia; Gard, of Ohio; Whaley, of South Carolina; Caraway, of
Arkansas; Igoe, of Missouri; Steele, of Pennsylvania, and, until now, yourself.
Mr. Williams: If a majority of the committee want to reconsider it I will vote
in favor of it.
Miss Martin: What would you do if we could only get ten Suffrage members
present tomorrow and they were a majority of those present?
Mr. Williams: Let us not make any further agreement. I have agreed to your
former proposition and I will stand by my word.
Miss Martin: We are sure you will.
After the deputation had left his office Mr. Williams promised Miss
Younger and Miss Martin that, whenever the requisite number of
friends of Suffrage were present at a meeting of the Judiciary
Committee, he himself would move a reconsideration of the
question.
Again I quote Miss Younger’s, Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist:

We now had a majority of one on the committee. We had only to get the
majority together. It seemed a simple thing to do, but it wasn’t.
The number of things that could take a Congressman out of town on
Tuesday and Thursday mornings, the number of minor ailments that could
develop on those days was appalling. It seemed that every time a
Congressman faced something he did not want to do, he had a headache.
Monday after Monday, Wednesday after Wednesday, we went from office to
office, inquiring solicitously about each man’s health. Was he quite well? Did
he have a headache or any symptoms of internal disorders? Was his wife in
good health? His children? Could any business affairs arise to take him out of
town next day?...
The weeks went by and we were not able to get our majority, together.
“You think you’re going to bring that question up again,” said Mr. Webb, the
chairman. “No power on earth will do it. It’s locked up in sub-committee till
next December, and it’s going to stay there.”
This was repeated to Miss Paul. “Nonsense!” she said. “Of course it will be
brought up.”
But why should all this petty bickering, this endless struggling with
absurdities be necessary in order to get before Congress a measure dealing
with a question of public good? No man would run his private business that
way. Yet that is the way public business is done.
Finally after weeks of working and watchful waiting I reported to Anne on
Wednesday that a majority of our members were in town and well. We were
jubilant. Early next morning we were before the doors of the Judiciary
Committee to see them file in. They arrived one by one, solemn, nervously
hurrying by, or smiling in an amused or friendly way. Mr. Hunter Moss, our
staunch friend, appeared. Mr. Moss was dying of cancer. Though often too ill
to leave his bed, he asked his secretary to notify him whenever Suffrage was
to come up so that he might fight for it. Mr. Moss was our tenth man. We
recounted them anxiously. Ten supporters, ten opponents—where was Mr.
Dale of New York? I flew downstairs to his office—I don’t know who went
with me but I have a faint memory of red hair—and there he was in his shirt
sleeves calmly looking over his mail.
“Hurry!” we cried. “The committee is ready to meet. Every one’s there
except you!”
He reached for his coat but we exclaimed, “Put it on in the hall!” and
hurrying him out between us we raced down the corridor, helping him with
the coat as we ran, then into the elevator and up to the third floor and to the

committee room. We deposited him in one vacant seat. Our majority was
complete!
As we stood off and looked at our eleven men sitting there together,
gathered with so much effort and trial, no artist was ever prouder of a
masterpiece than we. We stood entranced surveying them until Mr. Webb
sternly announced that the committee would go into executive session which
meant that we must go.
In the anteroom other Suffragists gathered, also the newspaper men. Every
one said that in a few moments the Amendment would be reported out. But
the minutes ran into hours. Our suspense grew. Each time those closed doors
opened and a member came out we asked for news. There was none.
“Carlin’s got the floor.”
The morning dragged past. Twelve o’clock came. Twelve-thirty. One o’clock.
The doors opened. We clustered around our supporters and eagerly asked the
news.
Well, Carlin got the floor and kept it. He took up the time. It got late and
the members were hungry and wanted to go to luncheon, and there would
have been a lot of wrangling over the Amendment. So they adopted Carlin’s
motion to make Suffrage the special order of business two weeks from today.
“It’s all right,” our friends consoled us. “Only two weeks’ delay!”
But why two weeks? And why had Mr. Carlin, our avowed and bitter enemy,
himself made the motion to reconsider, tacking to it the two weeks’ delay,
unless something disastrous was planned?
Now began a care and watchfulness over our eleven, in comparison to
which all our previous watchfulness and care was as nothing. Not only did we
know each man’s mind minutely from day to day, but we had their
constituents on guard at home.
Washington’s mail increased. One man said, “I wish you’d ask those
Pennsylvania ladies to stop writing me!” Mr. Morgan said, “My secretary has
been busy all day long answering letters from Suffragists. Why do you do it?
You know I’m for it.” Mr. Neely, at a desk covered with mail, broke forth in
wrath, eyes blazing, “Why do you have all those letters written to me as
though you doubted my stand? I’m as unchangeable as the Medes and
Persians!”
On the 27th of March, the day before the vote, telegrams poured in. We
stumbled over messenger boys at every turn in the House office building. Late
that afternoon as Anne and I went into Mr. Taggart’s office we passed a
postman with a great bundle of special-delivery letters.

Mr. Taggart was last on the list. Every one else was pledged to be at the
meeting next day.
“Yes, I’ll be there,” said Mr. Taggart slowly and ominously. “But I’ll be a little
late.”
“Late!” We jumped from our seats. “Why, it’s the special order for ten-
thirty!”
“Well, I may not be very late. I’ve got an appointment with the Persian
Ambassador—Haroun al Raschid,” said he, and looked at each of us defiantly.
We pleaded, but in vain. Without Mr. Taggart we had not a majority. What
could we do? We discussed it while we walked home in the crisp afternoon air.
There was no Persian ambassador in America, but a chargé d’affaire, and his
name was not Haroun al Raschid, but Ali Kuli Kahn. We smiled at Mr. Taggart’s
transparency, but we were alarmed. Our Amendment hung on Mr. Taggart’s
presence.
Suppose after all he did intend to consult Persia on some matter of moment
to Kansas? To leave no loop-hole unguarded, Mary Gertrude Fendall next
morning at nine o’clock took a taxi to the Persian legation and left it on the
corner. At ten o’clock she was to ring the bell, ask for Mr. Taggart, drive him in
haste to the Capitol and deposit him in the midst of our majority. As she
walked up and down, however, the problem became acute, for how could she
get him out of the legation when he did not go in? At last, ringing the bell,
seeing one attaché and then another, she became convinced that nothing was
known of the Kansas Congressman in the Persian legation, so she telephoned
us at the Capitol.
This confirmed our fears. Every one else was present; Mr. Taggart was not
in his office; no one knew where he was. Ten-thirty came; ten forty-five.
There was nothing of the vanquished in the faces of our opponents. Mr. Carlin
grinned affably at all of us, and the grin chilled us. We looked anxiously from
one to another as the meeting began. Ten supporters—ten opponents. Mr.
Taggart, wherever he was, had our majority. The minutes dragged. Our
friends prolonged the preliminaries. A stranger near me pulled out his watch.
I leaned over and asked the time. “Five minutes to eleven.” And just at that
moment, looking up, I saw Mr. Taggart in the doorway—Mr. Taggart, very
much of a self-satisfied, naughty little boy, smiling triumphantly. That did not
matter. Our majority was complete.
The committee went into executive session, and we moved to the
anteroom. “A few minutes and you’ll have your Amendment reported out,”
said the newspaper men. “It’s all over but the shouting.” The situation was
ours. Suffrage was the special order; nothing could be considered before it,
and we had a majority. As the moments passed we repeated this, trying to

keep up our courage. For time lengthened out. We eyed the door anxiously,
starting up when it opened. We caught glimpses of the room. The members
were not sitting at their places, they were on their feet, shaking their fists.
“They’re like wild animals,” said one member who came out.
“But what’s happening?” There was no answer. The door closed again.
Slowly we learned the incredible fact. When the door had shut upon us, Mr.
Carlin immediately moved that all constitutional amendments be indefinitely
postponed.
Now there were many constitutional amendments before that committee,
covering many subjects: marriage, divorce, election of judges, a national
anthem, prohibition. Mr. Carlin, to defeat us, had thrown them all into one
heap. A man could not vote to postpone one without voting to postpone them
all. He could not vote against one without voting against them all. Were these
men actually adult human beings, legislating for a great nation, for the
welfare of a hundred million people?
The motion threw the committee into an uproar. Our friends protested that
it could not be considered; Suffrage was the special order of the day. Mr. Moss
moved that the Suffrage Amendment be reported out. The chairman ruled
this out of order. Now there was a majority in that committee for Suffrage and
a majority for prohibition, but they were not the same majority. One of the
strongest Suffragists represented St. Louis with its large breweries. If he
voted against postponing the Prohibition Amendment he could never again be
re-elected from St. Louis. Yet he could not vote to postpone it without
postponing Suffrage also.
Through the closed door came the sound of loud, furious voices. We caught
glimpses of wildly gesticulating arms, fists in air, contorted faces. One o’clock
approached. Mr. Moss came out and crossed quickly to the elevator. We
hurried after him.
“Indefinitely postponed,” he said indignantly, not wanting to talk about it.
“But our majority?”
“We lost one.”
“Who?”
“I cannot tell.” He stepped into the elevator. The other men came trooping
out. Our defeat was irrevocable, they all said. Nothing could be done until the
following December.
“You see,” said Mr. Taggart, looking very jubilant for a just-defeated
Suffragist, “You women can all go home now. You needn’t have come at all
this session. But of course you women don’t know anything about politics. We

told you not to bring up Suffrage before election. Next December, after
election, we may do something for you.”
Our opponents, secure in victory, grew more friendly; but as they warmed,
our supporters became colder. Mr. Chandler flatly refused to stay with us.
“I’ve voted for your Amendment twice,” he said, “and I won’t vote for it
again this session. That’s final.”
I also heard rumors of Mr. Neely’s refusing to vote for it, so I caught him in
a corridor and hurried beside him, talking as I walked.
“That true,” he said. “I won’t vote for it again this session. It’s no use
talking. I am as unchangeable as the Medes and Persians.”
“But that’s just what you said when you were receiving so many letters that
you thought we doubted you! You said nothing could——”
“I’ve got some bills of my own to get out of this committee,” said he,
waving aside the Medes and Persians. “I won’t get them out if you keep
bringing up this Suffrage. Good day.”
In commenting upon the action of the Judiciary Committee, Miss
Alice Paul said:
The action of the Democratic leaders at Washington in again blocking the
Suffrage Amendment by postponing indefinitely its consideration in the
Judiciary Committee is an additional spur to Suffragists to press forward with
their plan of going out through the Suffrage States to tell the women voters—
particularly those who are supporting the Democratic Party—of the opposition
which the Party is giving to the Federal Amendment at Washington.
We have now labored nearly a third of a year to persuade the Democratic
leaders in Congress to allow the Amendment to be brought before the
members of the House for their consideration. The rebuff in the committee
today shows the necessity of not delaying longer in acquainting the four
million voting women with what is going on in Congress.
Many months still remain, in all probability, before Congress adjourns. We
will do our utmost in these months to create such a powerful party of voting
women in the West as to make it impossible for the Democratic leaders at
Washington longer to continue their course of refusing to let this measure
come before the House for even the few minutes necessary for discussion and
a vote.

Miss Younger says further:
The following Tuesday found me as usual in the Judiciary Committee room.
When I appeared in the doorway there was a surprised but smiling greeting.
“You haven’t given up yet?”
“Not until you report our Amendment.”
For the first time Mr. Webb smiled. There was surprise in his voice. “You
women are in earnest about this.”

IV
MORE PRESSURE ON THE PRESIDENT
In the meantime the work with the President was going on. Mr.
Wilson was about to make a speaking trip which included Kansas.
This would be the first time since his inauguration that he would visit
a Suffrage State.
On January 26, 1916, Mrs. William Kent and Maud Younger waited
on the President to ask him to receive a delegation of women in a
forthcoming visit to New York. In presenting this request, Mrs. Kent
sounded a note which was beginning to become the dominant strain
in the Suffrage demands of the western women.
“Women are anxious to express to you, Mr. President,” she said,
“the depth of earnestness of the demand for Woman Suffrage. We
as western women and as citizens are accustomed to having a
request for political consideration received with seriousness; and we
feel keenly the injustice of the popular rumor that such delegations
are planned to annoy a public official. We hope that you will
appreciate the dignity and propriety of such a representative appeal
as the women of New York are now making.”
President Wilson said that such an assumption was entirely absent
from his mind. He added that he had decided to make it a rule
during his trip to New York and throughout the Middle West not to
receive any delegations whatever, since he would “get in wrong,” as
he said, if he received one and not another; it was very possible,

however, that he might be approached by deputations which he
would be able to receive.
As Mrs. Kent and Miss Younger came out from this call on the
President, the evening papers were on the stands. They announced
that the next day in New York the President would receive fifteen
hundred ministers.
On the morning of January 27, 1916, over a hundred women,
organized by Doris Stevens and led by Mrs. E. Tiffany Dyer,
assembled in the East Room of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel. Fifteen
minutes later they sent up a note asking for a ten-minute audience
with the President, that New York women might lay their case for
federal action upon Suffrage before him. Secretary Tumulty sent
back the following note:
For the President, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your note requesting
a Conference with him to discuss the Suffrage Amendment. I very much
regret that the President’s engagements make it impossible to arrange this
matter as you have so generously suggested. When a representative from
your committee called at the White House the President informed her of the
crowded condition of his calendar today.
Joseph Tumulty.
As this note merely said that no time had been set aside for a
deputation of women, and did not say that it would be impossible to
see him at all, a second note was sent, asking for just five minutes
and offering to wait as long as necessary. In the meantime, an
interview between Mr. Tumulty and Mrs. Amos Pinchot took place.
Mrs. Pinchot reported to the deputation that the President and his
Secretary were “conferring.” For two hours the women waited,
holding a meeting. Some of the women thought it was undignified to
wait since the President had stated in his note that an appointment
had not been secured.
“But,” said Mrs. Carol Beckwith, “why quibble about our
undignified position here in the Waldorf? Our political position is

undignified, and that is what we should remedy.”
At a quarter past eleven, the President appeared.
In answer to the speeches of Mrs. Dyer, Mrs. Henry Bruere, Mary
Ritter Beard, President Wilson said:
I ought to say, in the first place, that the apologies, I think, ought to come
from me, because I had not understood that an appointment had been made.
On the contrary, I supposed none had been made, and, therefore, had filled
my morning with work, from which it did not seem possible to escape.
I can easily understand the embarrassment of any one of your
representatives in trying to make a speech in this situation. I feel that
embarrassment very strongly myself, and I wish very much that I had the
eloquence of some of your speakers, so that I could set my views forth as
adequately as they set forth theirs.
It may be, ladies, that my mind works slowly. I have always felt that those
things were most solidly built that were built piece by piece, and I felt that
the genius of our political development in this country lay in the number of
our States, and in the very clear definition of the difference of sphere
between the State and Federal Government. It may be that I am a little old-
fashioned in that.
When I last had the pleasure of receiving some ladies urging the
Amendment that you are urging this morning, I told them that my mind was
unchanged, but I hoped open, and that I would take pleasure in conferring
with the leaders of my Party and the leaders of Congress with regard to this
matter. I have not fulfilled that promise, and I hope you will understand why I
have not fulfilled it, because there seemed to be questions of legislation so
pressing in their necessity that they ought to take precedence of everything
else; that we could postpone fundamental changes to immediate action along
lines in the national interest. That has been my reason, and I think it is a
sufficient reason. The business of government is a business from day to day,
ladies, and there are things that cannot wait. However great the principle
involved in this instance, action must of necessity in great fundamental
constitutional changes be deliberate, and I do not feel that I have put the less
pressing in advance of the more pressing in the course I have taken.
I have not forgotten the promise that I made, and I certainly shall not
forget the fulfillment of it, but I want to be absolutely frank. My own mind is
still convinced that we ought to work this thing out State by State. I did what
I could to work it out in my own State in New Jersey, and I am willing to act
there whenever it comes up; but that is so far my conviction as to the best

and solidest way to build changes of this kind, and I for my own part see no
reason for discouragement on the part of the women of the country in the
progress that this movement has been making. It may move like a glacier, but
when it does move, its effects are permanent.
The Suffragist’s Dream.
President Wilson: My dear young lady, you have saved my life. How can I
thank you?
Nina Allender in The Suffragist.

I had not expected to have this pleasure this morning, and therefore am
simply speaking offhand, and without consideration of my phrases, but I hope
in entire frankness. I thank you sincerely for this opportunity.
Smiling the President turned to leave the room, when Mrs. Beard
reminded him that the Clayton Bill, with its far-reaching effects on
the working-man, had not been gained State by State.
“I do not care to enter into a discussion of that,” he said sharply.
In February, President Wilson visited Kansas in his “Preparedness
Tour.” As soon as it became known that he was coming to Topeka,
the heads of various Civic and Suffrage organizations in Kansas
telegraphed him, asking for an interview.
Secretary Tumulty answered by telegram that the crowded
condition of the Topeka program would not permit of this
arrangement.
The Kansas women telephoned that they were sure the President
could spare them five minutes, and they would await him at the
State House, immediately after the party arranged in his honor.
When Secretary Tumulty alighted from the President’s car in
Topeka, the inspired, swift, and executive Mabel Vernon met him
with a note from the Kansas women asking the President to see
them. To do this, she had had to run the gauntlet of a large force of
police, Secret Service men and the National Guard.
Mr. Tumulty said that he could give no answer at that time, but
that later the delegation could telephone him at Governor Capper’s
house, where President and Mrs. Wilson were entertained. Governor
Capper was a strong Suffragist. The women did call later, but
Secretary Tumulty explained then that it would be impossible for the
President to see them. After much talk, an arrangement was made
that the delegation should come to the Governor’s house at twenty
minutes before one. The thermometer was at zero, and snow was
falling, but the women waited before Governor Capper’s house for
an hour. Finally the President came out. The delegation, following

the purple, white, and gold, marched up the steps in double file. Lila
Day Monroe made a little speech, and handed the President the
petition. The President murmured:
“I appreciate this call very much.... I appreciate it very much.... I am much
obliged, much obliged.... Pleased to meet you ...” he repeated at intervals, but
he gave no expression of opinion.
After the deputation of women had filed by, The President handed
the petition to one of the Secret Service men, who buttoned it up in
his inside pocket.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankdeal.com

Principles of Information Security 5th Edition Whitman Solutions Manual

More Related Content

Similar to Principles of Information Security 5th Edition Whitman Solutions Manual (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Principles of Information Security 5th Edition Whitman Solutions Manual